It's actually impossible to gain punching power through gaining weight and "putting on" muscle

[max baer]

I don't think it works quite like that Nathan. Ultimately what we do is take a set of movements, and we see what we need to do to complete a movement. Then when we are training, we break down the type of conditioning we need to maximize the movement. All movements combine the two types of muscle fibers.

The general quality of movement is more to do with how one uses the body. It is training. So for example, to hit like Mayorga, or Tyson, one has to have a strong core, the ability to twist rather violently, and leg strength to grip into the ground. But the other aspects involve what we relax... So the shoulders have to be relaxed... See how that works?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLwjwvtCR50 this video about different boxing styles from country to country is interesting i think

[them_apples]

I apologize. I get too used to dealing with infantile behavior on here that I get dragged down too, I guess, but really no excuses for rudeness.

If you really do want more detail, I'll give it a go.

When a fighter drains down to make weight, it's just water weight, and they rehydrate to a weight that they walk around at, and have been training at. Because boxers tend to drain down to make the lowest weight class they can, moving up in weight classes only when they have to because they can't peel off enough weight, they're not affected because they're not actually gaining weight at any point during the process. They usually also start when they're young and their bodies aren't mature, and they'll naturally put on a certain amount of bulk that's easy to carry because it's natural.

However, sometimes a fighter will try to put on excess muscle through weight training etc, like body building, thinking it will help them hit harder. All kinds of things can go wrong with that, especially if it's done over a short period of time. As Billeau2 points out, it's a delicate balance. They're not used to carrying the extra weight, and more muscle burns more oxygen, so they need even more cardio to counterbalance the new needs of their physique. Just things like moving around the ring or doing head movement are harder and more fatiguing. And the extra bulk can actually slow them down, much like you can move around a light weight very quickly, but it's much harder to move around a heavier one, especially at the same speed. You have to train to keep your explosiveness if you're going to bulk up.

In your example, Ellis started out sick with chronic tonsilitis, and really underweight, and most of his weight gain was involved in returning to healthy weight. So it's even farther outside the discussion about whether it's beneficial for a healthy fighter at a comfortable weight to try to put on more muscle mass to try to increase punching power.

This is a very educated and well written post

[them_apples]

That's literally basic physics. Force = Mass x Acceleration. Not velocity. Power is just force on target. Velocity times mass is momentum, which isn't directly relevant to power. That's why almost everything in this particular post is problematic.

Getting your acceleration right is everything. That's part of why Ali and Robinson, etc, were able to be quick without tell. The faster your acceleration is, the faster your punch builds speed (velocity) by definition. If you want your punch to get there as quickly as possible, it needs to go from zero velocity to the highest velocity you can manage as quickly as possible. That's what acceleration IS. The idea of acceleration in boxing is that your punch gets there before they have a chance to react.

Also, due to the fixed length of the arm, if your acceleration isn't fast, you won't be able to achieve as high velocity, but that's a byproduct and irrelevant to the force picture. Speed and mass is just momentum.

This isn't a matter of opinion. This is definitional stuff. Look it up if you don't believe it. But you really ought to know F=Ma without looking it up if you want to talk about power.

When it comes to the examples you gave, we get into kinetic chain. If you're tense at the shoulders, your kinetic chain stops there, and the force you've developed has to push the mass of your entire arm. If you're talking about the mass of the forearm, that means you're tense at the elbow and not turning the punch over. Maximizing the kinetic chain means you leverage acceleration from as many joints as possible, including the wrist. That relaxation means you don't have the antagonist muscles working against you in each of the joints, and you can maximize the acceleration of each contraction of the agonist muscle groups. Then you tense up at the moment of impact and structure comes into play.

You don't need to load up to maximize acceleration. That's actually the worst thing you can do. Truly being explosive isn't telegraphing. If there's telegraphing, it is because you're taking so long to accelerate up to speed that the opponent has time to react. That's the exact opposite of high acceleration. By definition, it's about getting to higher speeds as quickly as possible.

It almost sounds like you don't understand what acceleration even IS.

Momentum is primarily relevant to boxing in terms of defense, not power or offense. If you're going to preach about power, you need to have your basic physics correct, and you don't.

you do make some really good point here I gotta say

[crimsonfalcon07]

you do make some really good point here I gotta say

Glad you were able to find a little value in there. As Bruce Lee said, "adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is uniquely your own." About five years ago, for instance, I learned a different way of making a fist from the usual, that is structurally superior from the standard in terms of protecting your hand and wrist. Fist fighting is one of the oldest disciplines and there's still new things all the time. I've spent the last 20 years working specifically on how to improve power delivery in striking (and how to teach it), and there's so much that gets taught because of tradition, not because there's anything scientific behind it.

[them_apples]

Glad you were able to find a little value in there. As Bruce Lee said, "adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is uniquely your own." About five years ago, for instance, I learned a different way of making a fist from the usual, that is structurally superior from the standard in terms of protecting your hand and wrist. Fist fighting is one of the oldest disciplines and there's still new things all the time. I've spent the last 20 years working specifically on how to improve power delivery in striking (and how to teach it), and there's so much that gets taught because of tradition, not because there's anything scientific behind it.

I made a thread in the training section a while back - basically ranting about how most fighters today have no clue what boxing trainings tools intended use was for. This is why fighters today barely use the speed bag and constantly do padwork. Looks cool, they watch everyone else do it - has very little value unless used by the right coach. and those right coaches are all mostly dead now. another example is the those double end bags with the tiny bag on it, so fighters are forced to punt it with little taps because the thing is moving like a humming birds wings. Pointless, the old double end bags of larger size served a much better purpose - as they could be hit properly with follow-through.

[crimsonfalcon07]

I made a thread in the training section a while back - basically ranting about how most fighters today have no clue what boxing trainings tools intended use was for. This is why fighters today barely use the speed bag and constantly do padwork. Looks cool, they watch everyone else do it - has very little value unless used by the right coach. and those right coaches are all mostly dead now. another example is the those double end bags with the tiny bag on it, so fighters are forced to punt it with little taps because the thing is moving like a humming birds wings. Pointless, the old double end bags of larger size served a much better purpose - as they could be hit properly with follow-through.

This is going to be another that I agree with part and disagree with part.

Those double end bags you don't like can be very useful if you know what the point is. Those are very helpful to teach pinpoint accuracy, reaction speed, and varying your power. There's a ton of fighters who just throw full power with everything. Xander Zayas would be a good example of an upcoming contender. Canelo is mostly just doing nothing but power these days too, it seems.

But that lets the opponent brace for the shots, when you want to time them when they're relaxing to do real damage. Loma is one of the best at mixing up the power and tempo of his shots. You get them used to one speed and power level, and then hit hard in the middle of the combo when they relax a little. That's why the pitter patter straight punches followed by a hook outside is so effective. When you're throwing lighter punches, the body isn't going to tense up fully like it does reflexively when you know they're trying to take your head off with every punch. So you trick the body and blind them with the punches down the line so they bring the close high guard, and then come around it and catch them with a punch at a speed they're not expecting. The other way is to catch them off tempo, but that's a different training tool.

So those bags can be really helpful to work flow with head and foot movement and varying power. What you should see is a lot of defensive flow built in, and working on getting that precise pop, with some power shots added in periodically at differing angles. It's hard to do, but someone who gets good at that will be able to land knockout punches almost at will.

I agree that pads can be overrated, and often get misused. But that ties back into your point that tools have specific purposes. That's why I think it's important to know the why and how of things.

[them_apples]

This is going to be another that I agree with part and disagree with part.

Those double end bags you don't like can be very useful if you know what the point is. Those are very helpful to teach pinpoint accuracy, reaction speed, and varying your power. There's a ton of fighters who just throw full power with everything. Xander Zayas would be a good example of an upcoming contender. Canelo is mostly just doing nothing but power these days too, it seems.

But that lets the opponent brace for the shots, when you want to time them when they're relaxing to do real damage. Loma is one of the best at mixing up the power and tempo of his shots. You get them used to one speed and power level, and then hit hard in the middle of the combo when they relax a little. That's why the pitter patter straight punches followed by a hook outside is so effective. When you're throwing lighter punches, the body isn't going to tense up fully like it does reflexively when you know they're trying to take your head off with every punch. So you trick the body and blind them with the punches down the line so they bring the close high guard, and then come around it and catch them with a punch at a speed they're not expecting. The other way is to catch them off tempo, but that's a different training tool.

So those bags can be really helpful to work flow with head and foot movement and varying power. What you should see is a lot of defensive flow built in, and working on getting that precise pop, with some power shots added in periodically at differing angles. It's hard to do, but someone who gets good at that will be able to land knockout punches almost at will.

I agree that pads can be overrated, and often get misused. But that ties back into your point that tools have specific purposes. That's why I think it's important to know the why and how of things.

I can think of 50 fighters that would wash Loma at 126 and his tap and touch style. The guys hes up against are just all glorified amateurs.

this is why the tiny double end bag looks useful. But nobody presses Lomachenko (outside of Salido). They all sit and box on the outside with him because they cant fight any other way. On top of this, the timing of a larger double end bag is much more suited to a professional fight. You can still vary your speed, as old fighters did it more than new fighters. But the shots you wake them up with are real punches. Nobodies head moves in the timing of a tiny double end bag.

what Joe Frazier did to Ali is an example of how to nullify a fighter that moves around and boxes. When someone asked emmanuel steward how to deal with a pressure fighter as a boxer and his answer was dont match them together

outside of my disagreeing with you about these bags, you literally post almost identical stuff I have posted in the past, and I completely agree with it. The playing with a fighters flex radar is the key to being a knockout artist. Loma certainly isnt the best at it though. Duran for example, was incredible at it. Robinson as well, they had beautiful rythms that were incredibly hard to time. Especially if you had never faced them before

[Bundana]

[QUOTE=them_apples;n31897579]I can think of 50 fighters that would wash Loma at 126 and his tap and touch style. The guys hes up against are just all glorified amateurs./QUOTE]

I wonder, if there are any boxers today, that are not complete bums, in your opinion? Are they all robotic amateurs, who can't really fight (you know, like Bivol and Canelo)? I have never seen you say a single positive word about today's boxers - which is why I ask this question.

So are there any of today's boxers, who you feel would be good enough to "hang" with the greats of yesteryear, if time-machined back to, say, the 1920s or 1930s - or would they all be shamed by the "real" fighters, they would be facing back then?

[them_apples]

[QUOTE=Bundana;n31897731]

I can think of 50 fighters that would wash Loma at 126 and his tap and touch style. The guys hes up against are just all glorified amateurs./QUOTE]

I wonder, if there are any boxers today, that are not complete bums, in your opinion? Are they all robotic amateurs, who can't really fight (you know, like Bivol and Canelo)? I have never seen you say a single positive word about today's boxers - which is why I ask this question.

So are there any of today's boxers, who you feel would be good enough to "hang" with the greats of yesteryear, if time-machined back to, say, the 1920s or 1930s - or would they all be shamed by the "real" fighters, they would be facing back then?

To clarify, I only attack the modern day boxers to counter the delusion I see being posted every day. It's just as insulting to hear a trainer at the gym say Fury and his modern conditioning would beat Lennox Lewis as it is for me to rip on new fighters. it's a fair trade.

yeah, because the competition isn't there, and the environment to breed the best fighters is no longer there - the majority of modern boxing is below the standard of yesteryear. obviously it still would vary on an individual basis. Lomachenko clearly would out box the cab drivers of yesteryear as well just not the elites, but all thing considered equal the past gens elites IMO were far superior.

To quickly back up my claim as to why I think this:

1) fighters are private contractors now, they can duck and dodge like never before. Previously promoters made all the decisions, fighters had to be ready to fight anyone. This is why we saw every big fight the public ever wanted (for the most part) and sometimes 6 times a piece.

2) people born in the era of smart phones simply grew up softer. I could go on as to why by defining the differences between then and now, but hopefully you can fill in the blanks.

3). you could fight more frequently back in the day

4). Marketing wasn't as big of a deal as it is today. Fights are sold on hype more than ever. they got numbers for everything. Undefeated records for example, apparently sell - so they know how to spam undefeated records. This is a FACT. You can't have everyone with undefeated records or something foul is running around. I can tell you Davis, Teo,Haney and Garcia are all largely untested but some of them are world champions. How?? They still haven't fought anyone let alone each other, and the wins they get IMO are robberies sometimes (although to be fair, robberies have always happened).

5). fights were 15 rounds for the title. And there were FAR less titles. and far less weight classes to hide in. This is a huge factor. the very concept of this makes the environment more competitive. Even in the 90's Foreman winning a belt wasn't really as big of a deal as they made it out to be, because he won A belt, not THE belt.

6). my own personal observation, while this isn't a fact It still holds some water. I see the old fighters as more serious and willing to fight harder and fight longer. Honestly, although they are all dead now - when I was younger I knew some old guys in their 80's - they were just built different mentally. The old breed should never be underestimated. They went through more than we did. We are living in an era where men are wondering if they are women.

7) I believe the farther back you go the men got harder and harder - however Boxing to me seemed to hit its golden years in the 30's and out into the 40's (because of the trainers). The 30's was the great depression and world war 2 hadn't begun yet (well 39') so the competition pool was high, people were hungry and motivated and fights were happening every week. Out of this era came all the skills and savvy that only experience and hard work can bring.

8) fighters had more losses because they weren't protected. This is actually a fact. they lost more because they all fought each other and not everyone can win. if everyone is undefeated - it means they aren't fighting eachother. This is a fact. Ever wonder why Holyfield has so many losses for a contemporary fighter? well look at his resume, he fought everyone! - which was rare even back then.

To make it in boxing you had to be good and durable because nobody protected you. Even in gyms as an ammy nobody really protected you - they threw you to the lions. I can back this up from articles I have read but I can't be bothered.

Anyhow, these are my reasons. They are not all facts - but I am backing my claims up with a mix of factual and opinion from observation - which I think is fair in a mythical debate like this.

[Bundana]

[QUOTE=them_apples;n31898046]

To clarify, I only attack the modern day boxers to counter the delusion I see being posted every day. It's just as insulting to hear a trainer at the gym say Fury and his modern conditioning would beat Lennox Lewis as it is for me to rip on new fighters. it's a fair trade.

yeah, because the competition isn't there, and the environment to breed the best fighters is no longer there - the majority of modern boxing is below the standard of yesteryear. obviously it still would vary on an individual basis. Lomachenko clearly would out box the cab drivers of yesteryear as well, but all thing considered equal the past gens elites IMO were far superior.

To quickly back up my claim as to why I think this:

1) fighters are private contractors now, they can duck and dodge like never before. Previously promoters made all the decisions, fighters had to be ready to fight anyone. This is why we saw every big fight the public ever wanted (for the most part) and sometimes 6 times a piece.

2) people born in the era of smart phones simply grew up softer. I could go on as to why by defining the differences between then and now, but hopefully you can fill in the blanks.

3). you could fight more frequently back in the day

4). Marketing wasn't as big of a deal as it is today. Fights are sold on hype more than ever. they got numbers for everything. Undefeated records for example, apparently sell - so they know how to spam undefeated records. This is a FACT. You can't have everyone with undefeated records or something foul is running around. I can tell you Davis, Teo,Haney and Garcia are all largely untested but some of them are world champions. How?? They still haven't fought anyone let alone each other, and the wins they get IMO are robberies sometimes (although to be fair, robberies have always happened).

5). fights were 15 rounds for the title. And there were FAR less titles. and far less weight classes to hide in. This is a huge factor. the very concept of this makes the environment more competitive. Even in the 90's Foreman winning a belt wasn't really as big of a deal as they made it out to be, because he won A belt, not THE belt.

6). my own personal observation, while this isn't a fact It still holds some water. I see the old fighters as more serious and willing to fight harder and fight longer. Honestly, although they are all dead now - when I was younger I knew some old guys in their 80's - they were just built different mentally. The old breed should never be underestimated. They went through more than we did. We are living in an era where men are wondering if they are women.

7) I believe the farther back you go the men got harder and harder - however Boxing to me seemed to hit its golden years in the 30's and out into the 40's (because of the trainers). The 30's was the great depression and world war 2 hadn't begun yet (well 39') so the competition pool was high, people were hungry and motivated and fights were happening every week. Out of this era came all the skills and savvy that only experience and hard work can bring.

8) fighters had more losses because they weren't protected. This is actually a fact. they lost more because they all fought each other and not everyone can win. if everyone is undefeated - it means they aren't fighting eachother. This is a fact. Ever wonder why Holyfield has so many losses for a contemporary fighter? well look at his resume, he fought everyone! - which was rare even back then.

To make it in boxing you had to be good and durable because nobody protected you. Even in gyms as an ammy nobody really protected you - they threw you to the lions. I can back this up from articles I have read but I can't be bothered.

Anyhow, these are my reasons. They are not all facts - but I am backing my claims up with a mix of factual and opinion from observation - which I think is fair in a mythical debate like this.

Several good points! Some that I agree with - and some that I don't.

However, you didn't answer my question: Which modern boxers could "hang" with the best old-timers? And by "modern", let's say, for the sake of argument, from the last 25 years!
And I don't mean if they were born into another "superior" era, where they grew up without smart phones, but with stronger chins and more heart - not to mention being taught by better trainers. No, let's pretend we time-machine these boxers as they are/were into the 1930s ... are there any "moderns", who would be able to hold their own against the elite level fighters from back then? Or would they all drown in a sea of superior talented fighters?

Let's get some specific names on the table!